drumcat Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Okaaaaaaaayyyy .... Boy, you let your subscription to the Economist lapse for just a year or two, and you miss a whole new cultural and religious renaissance developing right under your nose .... Shame on you for letting your Economist subscription lapse! It has more common sense than the whole of the District of Columbia in every issue! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Shame on you for letting your Economist subscription lapse! It has more common sense than the whole of the District of Columbia in every issue! ;) Actually, I would NEVER let my Economist subscription lapse -- for the reason you stated. I just couldn't think of another recognizable international publication that would make my joke work !!! (American Way in flight magazine, perhaps ??) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drumcat Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Actually, I would NEVER let my Economist subscription lapse -- for the reason you stated. I just couldn't think of another recognizable international publication that would make my joke work !!! (American Way in flight magazine, perhaps ??) People? Vatican weekly? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyRyder_FMM Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) A mix of reasons...I find these to be just someone who is PO'd trying to make some sort of point, knowing that they have no chance of passing. That's my primary reason. And yes, since I am pro-amp that colors my thoughts....I am pro-anything that brings DCI into the 21st Century. It does grate on me to see proposals that want DCI to move back in time. So it's probably not the specific of any one proposal, but the mindset that DCI should be moving backwards and not forwards that REALLY colors my opinion on the proposals. You know Mike, I don't think you ever once asked me my opinion on the topics of my rule proposals, so on what basis do you conclude that I'm just PO'ed and trying to make some sort of point? Why is it so inconceivable that I simply don't think the benefits outweight the costs associated with certain rules, and rather than just whine about it on DCP, I took steps to try to change them? Given the voting results for the proposals, it would appear that I am not alone in my thinking either. So is everyone that voted in favor of my proposals PO'ed too? Rather than rely on insinuation and conjecture, if you want to know the reasons I made the proposal, try asking me, ok? That too much to ask? Edited December 22, 2007 by SkyRyder_FMM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntheMood Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 Is it any more rude than the comments many of you make towards Hopkins for his proposals? Double standard, perhaps? I for one have never said Mr. Hopkins Proposal were a waste of time for the BoD. I diagree with Mr Hopkins vision for OUR Activity. I also did not like it when he called out the Classic Audience of 75. Yet I respect Mr. Hopkins. To me he is one of the few Corps Dirs out there who stand behind their vote. It is safe to say that if any of these Proposals make it to the BoD this year,I have a good feeling which way Mr. Hopkins may vote on most of the Proposal. I just feel that all proposals no matter their author, must be given the same respect. In other words. If one proposal is a waste of the BoD time. Then ALL proposals are a waste of the BoD time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Flores Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 As much as I have come to enjoy listening to the pit sound not noticable before...the wording of this document really makes some points that cannot be ignored. Fiscal, logistical, and most of all safety...1 bad short and it could be very tragic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
audiodb Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Back in 2003, I wrote a letter to the corps directors to state my case against the amplification proposal(s) that were on the table that year (this was the year amps were voted in). I'm not going to post the whole thing here at this point, but here is the synopsis of the points I made: In a nutshell, amplification and electronics: 1 - would introduce opportunities for unfair advantage in drum corps competition which cannot be policed by contest staff. 2 - will raise the cost of properly equipping a corps with competitive aspirations. 3 - will alienate a significant portion of the existing audience and membership base of the activity, with no evidence of a compensating gain in new fans or members. 4 - have been introduced and retained in some marching band circuits, but they present several logistic problems unique to the drum corps activity. 5 - is being presented in two mutually exclusive proposals, indicating a lack of consensus even among proponents. 6 - would change the fundamental nature of the activity as a purely acoustic form of music, perhaps it's last claim to a unique identity. 7 - is an irreversible change, demanding greater certainty before implementation. 8 - could be field-tested to settle questionable issues before voting on a permanent rule change. I'd say there were some valid concerns in there. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrumCorpsFan27 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Back in 2003, I wrote a letter to the corps directors to state my case against the amplification proposal(s) that were on the table that year (this was the year amps were voted in). I'm not going to post the whole thing here at this point, but here is the synopsis of the points I made:I'd say there were some valid concerns in there. Thoughts? Email the directors this year. Ask them to forward you letter to the instructors as well. I did, and I have had a couple of nice responses already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntheMood Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 Back in 2003, I wrote a letter to the corps directors to state my case against the amplification proposal(s) that were on the table that year (this was the year amps were voted in). I'm not going to post the whole thing here at this point, but here is the synopsis of the points I made:I'd say there were some valid concerns in there. Thoughts? I found these words on DCI.org 2004. I think they speak to some of what you said. " The idea of " go at your own risk" frees us from having to react to our fears, yet assures the activity the shows will go on and that the amped Corps won't get special treatment nor interrupt the flow of the event. The field remains level, so to speak, and the look and feel of our contest will remain as they are." Pat Seidling "You can't just bring 20 extension cords and think you'll be able to plug in anywhere and that's that. It is ( as anyone with any kind of amplification experience can tell you) much, much more than that." Jeff Fiedler I know Mr. Hopkins is talking about the 04 show here ( I think) but it is still interesting to me. "We will use it, but in moderation. We will not use voice, we will not work for effects but rather, what we have in mind is simply the support of current percussive sounds that are more or less lost within the live performance." George Hopkins I will leave you all with this last one from Mr. Hopkins "I think we will find good uses and not so good uses of amplification this summer, but within 3 years, the technology will be used with comfort and skill by all within the marching activity." George Hopkins It is interesting that in this same article Southwind and Capital Reg. Talked about the fiscal side of adding amps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scerpella Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 (edited) This won't pass. Amplification of the pit was a very musically advancing addition to drum corps. The people in charge know this. Most people are ignorant to many things about pits. Before amps, kids in the pit literally had to use a completely different technique to produce enough sound. It was bad for their hands, and completely irrelevant to any other performance situation they would be in. You don't play keyboards and timpani like DCI did before amplification. It was hard to play any dynamic other than FFF and be heard. This is why amplification was proposed. This is why nearly every world class director voted for it. You bring up an excellent point about the fundamental unsuitability of front ensembles with an acoustic activity. I think for this reason we should go the whole 9 yards and either open pits up to all sorts of amplified equipment such as guitars, electric keyboards etc, or get rid of them altogether. I do have to say however that I never had any problem being distracted by er hearing the pit before amplification. To me its not enough that an amplified pit adds new textures to the sound of the corps, because if thats the sole criteria that opens up a whole nuther can of worms for what we can bring to a drum corps show. Ultimately Star got it right. They understood that to make the kind of music they wanted to make it would no longer be drum corps so they "retired" and launched their joint effort with Canadian Brass. If some of these corps really want to blaze trails, better that they join the marching band circuits where those things are looked upon more favorably. Edited January 9, 2008 by Scerpella Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.